Wednesday, November 20, 2013

CAMPBELL NEWMAN TAKING LESSONS FROM VLADIMIR PUTIN

Campbell Newman, like Vladimir Putin, has forgotten there is more to democracy than winning elections, says Peter Callaghan SC.

OPINION

There is actually more to democracy than winning elections.

We know that the Newman/Bleijie government won an election last year –
so did Vladimir Putin's.

What makes our democracy different is respect
for conventions like judicial independence, engagement with the
parliamentary process, and adherence to the rule of law.

the way a government behaves towards the democratic process
is only a manifestation of the way they would behave towards each of us
individually

With its rash of mandatory sentencing provisions and petulant
outbursts about judges, the government revealed its attitude towards
judicial independence.

It is, for them, a plaything to be tossed around
for sport, and discarded when inconvenient.

And today we can again gauge, precisely, the amount of
respect that the government has for parliamentary process.

A
parliamentary committee that ought to be given at least a month to look
at these laws has all of one day.

That task cannot be completed in that
time, at least not with intellectual rigour.

One senses that even this
act of tokenism is viewed as an inconvenience.

You can almost hear
muttering to the effect that Putin does not have to worry about the
scrutiny of parliamentary committees.

It is not as if the Bill is uncontroversial. In fact, it
cloaks daggers aimed at the heart of the rule of law.

For example, once
this law is passed, a citizen's liberty will potentially be affected not
just by what they did, or what they belonged to at the time of an
alleged offence.

Freedom is now to be threatened if a person is or at
any time has been a member of a relevant organisation.

It is sickening
to think that the language of Joseph McCarthy is now part of the Law of
Queensland.

And remember, “organisations” are not limited to groups of
“bikies”.

It is just wrong to change someone's status in the eyes of
the law because of something they did long ago, back when that something
was perfectly legal. At any given time, the law must be certain.

All
citizens are entitled to know the laws that apply to them on any given
day, and not to have their conduct condemned years after the event.It is sheer folly to claim that such a change can ever be
justified because of an “emergency”.

An executive government that thinks
it can legislate retrospectively is a government for which anything is
possible, because it can provide its own definition of “emergency”.

If
it thinks it can legislate retrospectively, there is nothing to stop it
from removing long-standing pension entitlements because of a financial
“emergency”, or retrospectively invalidating a well-established planning
law because of a housing “emergency”.

It is hard to see how the fact that someone belonged to a
motorcycle club 40 years ago could create a sense of panic in anyone.

It
is actually doubtful whether the majority of Queenslanders were feeling
any sense of “emergency” that could justify a law like this.

But a
different sort of problem does now confront us, as it does any society
that allows legislation of this kind.

Retrospective legislation is condemned by every civilised
nation in the world.

These countries hold to the values expressed in
Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a
Covenant supported by most countries on the planet. However, there is a
short list of places in the world – such as North Korea – where the
beliefs that underpin that Covenant are clearly not valued.

It cannot be good for Queensland's "brand name" to be
associated with the countries on that list.

But we are now a place
where, at any given time, the law should be considered uncertain.

That
is not good for business.

It would be nice to think that the discussion about this
issue could take place in language at least worthy of a high school
debate.

Instead, we can anticipate repetition of clichés and parroting
of the term “tough new laws”.

Understand this – our laws were always
tough.

Whether the police and the CMC were sufficiently resourced to
enforce them is another matter.

The same politicians who control those
resources should not be allowed to distract from their failings by
describing retrospective legislation as “tough”. Call it – and the rest
of this nonsense - what it is: radical, disproportionate and obnoxious.

It should be remembered that the way a government behaves
towards the democratic process is only a manifestation of the way they
would behave towards each of us individually – by definition, we are the
democracy.

And when any one of us senses that we are being treated with
utter disrespect, it does not take long for that feeling to become
mutual.

Peter Callaghan SC is president of the Law and Justice Institute (Qld) Inc.

AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBALINDEPENDENT MEDIACOMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICSHONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO
KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com